Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
V.SRISHANANDA
Shivamurthy, S/o. Mallegowda – Appellant
Versus
Mahadevamma, W/o. Late Shambaiah – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. ownership and family property claims. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 2. application of hindu succession act amendments. (Para 10 , 18 , 19) |
| 3. challenge to sale deeds and plaintiffs' standing. (Para 11 , 12 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 4. legal binding rights of coparceners. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24) |
| 5. final ruling on the revision petition. (Para 29) |
ORDER :
V.SRISHANANDA, J.
Heard Sri Syed Akbar Pasha, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri Balassubramanya B.N., learned counsel for respondent Nos.1, 3 and 4.
2. Defendant No.10 is the revision petitioner who has filed the present revision petition challenging the dismissal of the application filed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC in O.S.No.1526/2021.
3. The facts which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present revision petition are as under
3.1. A suit in O.S.No.1526/2021 came to be filed on the file of Principal Civil Judge (Jr.Dn), Mysuru with the following prayer in respect of following property (hereinafter referred to as ‘suit property’).
“The plaintiffs humbly pray that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to pass judgment and Decree in their favour against the defendants as follows:
Judgment and Decree for 1/5 share in the
The court affirmed daughters' coparcener rights under the Hindu Succession Act, emphasizing that prior sales cannot negate their claims to jointly inherited property.
The judgment reinforces daughters' coparcenary rights under the Hindu Succession Act, stating that alienation by male relatives does not bar the daughters' claims for partition of property.
The court upheld the dismissal of the application for rejection of the plaint by emphasizing that the rights of a daughter to ancestral property are recognized under both the Hindu Succession Act and....
Previous family partition and lack of joint family status preclude the plaintiff from claiming coparcenary rights under Hindu law amendments.
The court reaffirmed that prior sales of property before the 2005 amendment to the Hindu Succession Act are protected and binding, setting aside the trial court’s decree granting shares to plaintiffs....
Section 6(5) is a narrow saving clause not a jurisdictional bar; res judicata applies to successive Order VII Rule 11 applications; daughters retain independent Section 8 succession rights unaffected....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
